I am real person . . . . The use of lunges was recommended to me by a coach. Here is his sequence. Weight on Left Lunge Forward with right, Brush, Back with the right, Close. Switch legs and repeat. I'll do them to a few tunes and move on. I focus on tight core, shoulders down and tail bone down.

Edit; I should add on the lowering I think "up" with the head and chest. As opposed to lower/collapse

A point, which has been ignored so far,is AGE. The posture of normal every day use, is molded by time, and to expect the average person to attain the "posture" of top flite dancers, and to train them to that level, is beyond my comprehension. Yes, if you are taking a young person with competitive aspirations, then by all means apply the methods to " shape" that person.. but.. in perspective,the average social dancer, needs to be approached from a teaching standpoint from a totally different angle.

For those who are teachers on this site, if you are fortunate enough to have young students who are interested in the comp/medal test world , OK.. but , the bread and butter of most schools is the social dancer, and in todays dance world, expediency is the order of the day, and developing top lines, is not their biggest concern !

Clumsy,
Thanks for posting the lunge method you use. (I doubt you're clumsy if you can do those that way.) I'm 48. I've been working to improve my core strength for a few years, now, and I think I will add this way of doing lunges to my exercises. And, Terence is right about the issue of age, but - with work and dedication, those of us who are middle-aged and older can improve our posture and dancing.

Please remember that posture and shape are not the same thing. Indeed, many of today's young competitors with extremely "presented" shape have truly horrid posture.

Posture - in the sense of alignment - is something that all dancers should strive for, because it is fundamentally about making the dancing easier and healthier. Usually the faults are excessive curvature in the lower back, leaving the hips behind when moving forward, and/or pitching forward into the partner's airspace. These are faults no matter what one's goal in dancing, because they interfere with the ballroom concept of partnering and healthy body usage.

Shape on the other hand is primarily created in the upper back. And is optional for social dancers - really, far better not to have any shape at all and to simply align over one's own feet, than to fake it with curvature of the lower spine.

Finally, to the other person who recommended a forward placement of the weight; that's fine during some phases of action, but to actually move backwards while maintaining sound posture, it's going to be necessary to take the body weight to the back of the standing foot. Ladies (in particular) who try to take a backwards step while keeping their weight forward in the standing foot end up arching their back - which is to say, the only body part who's movement actually counts for anything (the center) doesn't move until far too late. The weight shouldn't fall back too early either, but leaving it forward too long tends to be a more lasting problem. Quality ballroom movement is characterized by smooth and continued travel of the center - no pulsing starts or stops. To create this, the body weight must similarly travel the length of the feet, with smoothly continuous timing.

If "Anonymouse" keeps posting parts of the article that started this debate, we will have the whole lot.

that would be plagiarism in bits and bites ...

There's definitely no argument with posture not being the same thing as shape; and nobody in this exchange made that claim. neither is posture implied in alignment: alignment being simply the position of the feet in relation to the room (reference to the immortal "The Ballroom Technique" is superfluous). Perfect alignment is possible while slouching.

Of course, posture is what dancers strive toward, but poise is how one presents, and maintains it. Referring to my post of 05/22, it's clear that I am describing the lady's poise: upper part of the body and head slightly back and a little to the left (again, see "The Ballroom Technique"). One can almost see the beginnings of "shape".
I should point out an error in my description: I meant to say that the lady has her weight over the balls of the feet, the man has his towards the balls of his feet. The result is that the lady is ever so slightly forward weighted, which should help considerably moving backward; the man is ever so slightly back weighted, which should help considerably moving forward.

The position is still stationary, nothing has moved yet: we're ready for the preparatory step. The couple is balanced, ie. the centers of gravity are vertically aligned over the support, defined by the feet.

In order to move, the balance has to be disturbed, and the c o g displaced. During this displacement the body changes shape, and the c o g shifts. The whole point of dancing is to stay balanced while moving, stability. Stability is attained when the c o g is kept within an area of support, which is determined by the size of the stride, which in turn, is determined by the degree of knee bend of the supporting leg. Lateral area of support is determined by alignment . (ref. http://www.kgl-hga.eu).

I have to disagree with the concept of "it's going to be necessary to take the body weight to the back of the standing foot". If that is done before the moving foot does move, the result would be falling backwards, and pulling the partner forward. Before the Follower moves back, she settles on the supporting leg, ie. vertically aligns her c of g with the support which now lies between T and H, bends the knee, establishes the point of next support, then steps. The footwork, ie. the descriptions of which part of the foot is in contact with the floor, in the charts show it as TH, not H. Also, weight should not fall back, or anywhere, at all, early,late, or on time.

This ties in very neatly with the posts of phil.samways and clumsyfellow about the lunges. Their observations equally apply to back and side lunges. I submit that any of them can be done with a higher degree of frame and posture control and maintenance, if the knee of the supporting leg is optimally bent before the step-lunge. You would end up being able to do a wicked, languid bolero, too. Solutions to any problems with rise and fall will also come more readily.

All of the above applies to dancing in a social setting, as well as dancesport. Frame and posture cannot be compromised; topline, and size of steps/strides vary in degree. It's impossible to create big volume, big topline on a small base, and to try and cover 60 ft of long wall with a feather step, reverse turn, reverse turn and check, basic weave on a crowded floor during a social.

"There's definitely no argument with posture not being the same thing as shape; and nobody in this exchange made that claim."

Actually, the post I replied to did mix up the two subjects, which is why I posted.

"Neither is posture implied in alignment: alignment being simply the position of the feet in relation to the room"

The reference was not to foot alignment, but to the postural alignment of the body.

"In order to move, the balance has to be disturbed, and the c o g displaced. During this displacement the body changes shape, and the c o g shifts. The whole point of dancing is to stay balanced while moving"

Moving while remaining balanced is not possible, unless you position the moving foot while keeping the body stationary in balance over the standing foot, or slide the moving foot with weight on it. It's precisely trying to do this which causes dancers to buckle forward, leaving the weight of their hips behind when moving forward, or arch their back leaving the center forward when moving backward.

"Stability is attained when the c o g is kept within an area of support"

With only the standing foot bearing weight, this is impractical. Dancing (and indeed walking down the street) is dynamically UNSTABLE - however, it can still be elegant if skillfully done.

"I have to disagree with the concept of "it's going to be necessary to take the body weight to the back of the standing foot". If that is done before the moving foot does move, the result would be falling backwards"

Walking is well-aimed falling.

"and pulling the partner forward."

If it's badly aimed, sure. The answer is to be more careful in the aim of your departure from balance - essentially to make a nearly horizontal fall that lands softly on a foot that has moved into position only during the fall towards it.

"Before the Follower moves back, she settles on the supporting leg, ie. vertically aligns her c of g with the support which now lies between T and H, bends the knee, establishes the point of next support, then steps."

Establishing the moving foot in position before rolling through the standing one is precisely the problem that leads to poor postural alignment in the lower back, and choppy movement!

People do not walk this way; they shouldn't try to dance that way either.
"Also, weight should not fall back, or anywhere, at all, early,late, or on time."

Walking and dancing are precisely about falling "on time". The difference between a skilled and elegant execution and an unskilled and clumsy one is the strength to aim the departures from balance with sufficient accuracy that the arrivals are exactly as desired.

"This ties in very neatly with the posts of phil.samways and clumsyfellow about the lunges. Their observations equally apply to back and side lunges. I submit that any of them can be done with a higher degree of frame and posture control and maintenance, if the knee of the supporting leg is optimally bent before the step-lunge. You would end up being able to do a wicked, languid bolero, too. Solutions to any problems with rise and fall will also come more readily."

This is true.

"All of the above applies to dancing in a social setting, as well as dancesport. Frame and posture cannot be compromised;"

Frame certainly can be compromised. Skilled dancers are able to do fine with a general "awareness" of each other not mediated by any specific contact in body or arms.

"topline, and size of steps/strides vary in degree."

Of course

It would appear that this post has acquired a second "Anonymous". You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect the difference in the writing styles between the original threads and the more recent ones under the "non de plume" of anonymous. I wonder if "Anonymous too" felt sorry for the original contributor, or perhaps he is his Father!

This is where the Technique book falls down. Whether it be the man or the lady who is going backwards the footwork must be Toe Ball Heel and not T.H. And to get that toe onto the floor the standing knee must bend to the front, that is towards their partner. If the knee is straight or even straightish it will be the ball only that is on the floor and there will be an insufficient extension of the moving leg.